New Secondary schools for Richmond!

[BayJay]

Richmond Council recently published a White Paper outlining plans for Secondary education in the borough (cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=23719). They want new 6th forms in every school, and would need to decrease current Yr7 intakes to accomodate that. To offset those decreases they are talking about creating two new secondary schools. One of those new schools would be a Roman Catholic school.

The Roman Catholic community in the borough are currently disadvantaged by the "link" system (www.st-marys.richmond.sch.uk/Newsletter%20Link%20letter%20for%202011%20links%20(2).pdf). Because the Catholic primaries are not linked to any secondaries in the borough, their children tend to go to a combination of out-of-borough Catholic secondaries (which are mostly rated as Outstanding), grammar schools and private schools, though some of the girls do go to Waldegrave, which is not part of the link system. Note that there is no reason, in principle, why the Catholic Secondaries couldn't be linked to local community schools, but because many of their children have other options, they simply don't meet the "25% rule" required to form a link. (See an example set of transfer figures at www.st-james.richmond.sch.uk/Admin/Uploads/Docs/StJamesSchool_Parents_NewsLetter_270910.pdf).

This raises several questions in my mind:

1. Does the problem necessarily need to be solved by providing a Catholic Secondary, or are there alternative solutions that would benefit the community as a whole (e.g. reforming the link system)?
2. Does the majority of the Catholic community specifically want to be educated separately from the rest of us, or is it the case that, like everyone else, they simply want an outstanding education for their children, and find that the Catholic route is often the best way of achieving that?
3. If Catholics had more options for transferring to outstanding community schools locally (as many already do, to Waldegrave), would they choose those options over travelling to a single-faith school in a neighbouring borough?
4. I accept that there will always be very religious people who want to segregate themselves, but would I be right in asserting that there are also large numbers of Catholics who would be happy to attend community schools, provided that gave them the same level of academic excellence that can be found in many Catholic options?
5. If a new Catholic secondary school is created, it is likely to have an entrance policy that requires a priest's reference (as per the majority of existing Catholic schools). How do people feel about that?
6. If a state-funded Catholic School is created in the borough, would non-Catholic parents also like the option of sending their children there, provided they weren't barred by the admission system?

I'd be interested to hear your opinions!

If all eight Richmond schools were 'outstanding' do you still think that the RISC would have the support it has - the answer to that has a good chance of being 'no' wouldn't you say?
Not to say that it would not still have some support, from those that are against faith schools, but the debate would be far weaker.

On the other hand, I would take a guess that those in support of a Catholic school would still be campaigning like mad to have one.

Sorry sfxmum - cross posts - my question was directed to BayJay

I think it is the same on both sides, people are reluctant to send their children to failing schools or schools perceived to be failing, and they fail further, this happened to the last Catholic school in the borough lets not forget

goodnessme, this whole discussion today was triggered by ChrisSquire's link. However, he is not a spokesperson for RISC. He is the webmaster for the local Lib Dems (Chris - I hope you don't mind me saying that), so perhaps your anger is misplaced.

I'm not a spokesperson for RISC either. However I know that they have consisently pointed out the unfairness of the Linked Schools policy. One of their most prominent supporters is on the Admissions Forum and was influential in arguing for it to be reformed (for info, note that there are also several prominent supporters from the Catholic School campaign on the Admissions Forum too). There is going to be a consultation on the Linked School policy very soon.

goodnessme, in answer to "it would not still have some support, from those that are against faith schools, but the debate would be far weaker", I agree that there would probably be less support. However, not because the fairness argument would be weaker, just because the 'self-interest' force would be less strong. Needless to say the 'self-interest' force on the other side would remain high.

I repeat that (according to their own documentation) RISC is not against Faith Schools. Its aims are inline with those of Accord, so I suggest you take some time to go and read their website. Bear in mind that the faiths school debate goes much wider than Richmond Borough, and there are many politicians supporting the aims of Accord.

For info: the council have just published this report about the Linked School Policy. I'm off to read it now ....

I'm sorry, but there is no way that you can say, from the tone of this leaflet that they are not against Faith Schools.

In regards to the linked schools bit, the leaflet states "If inclusive capacity were increased to the right level, the system should be reformed"
This appears very much to me as a side issue.

I honestly do not think that this is just a capacity issue. I would have no problem getting my child into RPA because it is undersubscribed. It is a quality issue and it is this that needs to be addressed.

Well, if I was designing the leaflet I would have worded it less stridently, and I agree that it doesn't imply a priority of reforming the link system. Perhaps some people saw that leaflet and came to the same conclusions as you, and if so then it was an own goal for RISC. However, people have heard about the campaign from many different sources, and enough of them are happy with what they know about it to support it. If you don't agree, then fine, but that doesn't mean its right for you to try and tarnish the whole campaign as anti-Catholic. The evidence doesn't support it.

Gosh, I never thought that I would be arguing for the Catholic Schools campaign - where are the Catholics to help me out?

I am against the RISC for the reasons I have already stated.

I am not trying to imply, in any way that you are anti-catholic BayJay - but you can see where I would have got the idea that the campaign has an anti-Catholic stance, given the leaflet that continues to be promoted through the RISC website.

Well, I expect that there will be members of the RISC organising committee who will read your comments here and bear them in mind when designing future leaflets.

goodnessme, I don't know anybody in the RISC, but I think it rather unfair of you to suggest that its ranks are filled with the self-interested and the narrow-minded. Like many others, I support the campaign even I live round the corner from one of the borough's good secondary schools and so have no need for other options. I am not anti-Catholic. I am anti faith schools, but that doesn't make me anti-faith. I think the linked school policy is indefensible.

Your argument seems to be that because people are partly motivated by the poor quality of some borough schools, that somehow invalidates their arguments. But I could equally turn it round and say that, while many borough children are not getting a good enough education, it is even more outrageous that the council is planning on using our money to give a small minority of them privileged status over the rest. It is easy to say, "Why shouldn't catholic children go to catholic schools", and it sounds the most innocuous thing in the world, but we all know that school access is a cake you can only slice so many ways. If Catholic children get more options, that means other children get less options. It is NOT anti-catholic to find this unfair.

Again, my priority is to try and improve the standards of schools that are the only ones that some of us have a fighting chance of getting our children into.

I can't see why anyone without another agenda would argue against this.

Catholic parents in Richmond pay taxes too. I can understand why they are fighting to have a Catholic school, in borough that their children can attend.

The issue of whether this school ends up being a faith school or not is absolutely a red herring given that for there to be eqitability in educational provision accross the borough, it is going to take more than a tiny school of no more than 90-120 pupils per year.

I'm pleased for you Hester that you already have a great local school to fall back on. Many of us are not so lucky.

What is wrong with a high quality school at which children from all backgrounds are equally welcome, including children of Catholics?

.

I know, goodnessme; that is why I want to improve the chances of as many of them as possible, not just a select few.

And, by the way, I have to say I like the way you turn that back against me, as though I'm sitting here all smug and uncaring . It seems that you doubt the integrity of both those parents who do not have access to good schools, and those that do.

The bottom line, from my perspective is that the RISC is not about improving school chances for all.
It is about stopping Catholic children getting an in-borough school.

This new school, whatever it's designation, will improve nothing for children outside of it's catchment area.

School improvement should be everyone's priority - this has become a battle of those either wanting to deny the establishment of a faith school, at any cost, or a personal battle for those who are not Catholic who live close to the site.

Why would anyone really interested in improving the opportunities for all not want to focus on improving acadamy schools on the outskirts of the borough, rather than focus on a tiny school in the centre of Twickenham.

goodness me you are wrong. RISC petition does not rule out faith schools, including Catholic - all it is saying is that any new state funded school should be inclusive. This is important especially as there is projected shortage of secondary school places in the borough. Apart from Clifden road, there are no sites available - hence the new school should cater to everyone and not have selective admission

goodnessme, you keep saying that the Clifden Rd school will be tiny, but 120 pupils per year is 4-form entry. It is also expected to have a 6th form. If you include the one-form entry primary school that is also proposed then that gives a total of well over 1000 pupils. I don't call that tiny.

So what are you doing to improve those schools, goodnessme? I'm sorry if that sounds challenging - I'm not meaning to me - but I think you are constructing a straw man here. At least the RISC campaigners are doing SOMETHING to improve the education chances of all children in the borough. Criticising them for saying they don't fight on all battlefronts at once (and how do you know that many of them don't?) is rather strange. Having inclusive schools benefits all our children - I don't understand how you interpret it as narrow self-interest. Surely it is the Catholic campaign that is operating out of self-interest, not RISC which argues that no child should be excluded?

Goodnesme you seem to not take into account that a school in Central Twickenham would eventually free up places in schools such as Orleans, Teddington and Waldegrave, all attended by Twickenham based children. Maybe still too far to affect you personally but certainly would help a number of areas affected by a shortage of places.

I'm totally confused by your arguments godness me. though I am easily confused.

Like you, our nearest secondary school is RPA so no-one has more of a vested interest in improving standards there than me. I am totally baffles why you think that campaigning for all new schools tobe inclusive is mutually exclusive with trying to improve standards in existing secondary schools.

The RISC is specifically about making new schools inclusive - it is a single issue campaign. It does not mean that those of us who support this aim do not have feeling about other education issues and are not supportive of them as well. My brain can cope with more than one thing at a time

I am personally anti-govt funded faith schools (or at least new ones) I see no rationale for any tax-payer funding the specific religious schooling of any child although I do accept that in theory as we have no separation of church and state in this country that there is at least some argument for church of england schools. Otherwise - nope sorry I don't see it.

However if there were not a shortage of secondary places in richmond, then I certianly wouldn't be bothered to be campaigning personally - it would irrritate me but I would shrug and chose other battles.

Provision for the shortage in secondary places the councils current proposal is

a) increase uptake at those schools which are undersubscribed (my best hope)
b) increase intake at a religious school (Christs)
c) build a new religious school (catholic)

Do you not think thats a bit unfair on the majority of children?

Do you have a view on the fact that the catholic church do not arragne their schooling by borough but by diocese and there sufficient secondary places in the two diocese to cover all the catholic childrne (by their own admission)?

Isn't in fact your position driven by the self interest you accuse others of? A new school at the Clifden site is not going to benefit your child and therefore you really don't care about it.

Kewcumber I had to at your typo - I'm not godness me!

I can list the things that I am doing to try and help RPA if you like - raising money through the PTA, supporting a small local literacy/homework group.

Given that the increased demand on Catholic secondaries outside of the borough will impact on those families having to remain in-borough and so using local schools, I don't think that you can argue that it will only be an inclusive school that will take off some of the pressure.

At present, the bottom line is that everyone could get a place in a local school, just not necessarily a good school. I want a good school not only for my child, but for a huge number of children who live on the outskirts of our borough and so rely heavily on the success of the acadamy schools.
I just don't necessarily think that this can only be achieved by focusing all our energy on a campaign to discredit the need for a Catholic secondary.

I'm not focussing all my energies on it. Not even close. I'm also not trying to discredit anything except that there is a need for a catholic secondary. There is a want for one.

Many many catholics very happy to get a place at christs and wouldn;t/don't go further for a specific catholic education becasue they are happy with the alternative. Speaks volumes that the requirement is really for a good school not a catholic one. Although the cactholics would deny it publically - I know it to be the case for many catholic parents privately. Because I mix with catholics , still see no need for a catholic school - none at all. Otehr than "we want one"

(but yes typo very funny)

goodness me - thanks a lot for your good work on RPA. I would encourage you to work with the RPA community board in driving the 2012 admissions . Its critical to encourage the entire community including catholics to embrace RPA. RPA will benefit is we can encourage the community uptake and help them reach their target 125-140 in 2012 ( was 96 and 2011). This will need support now in 2011 from all the local primaries including the Catholic primaries St Edmunds and St Mary Magdalene. RPA will welcome whole heartedly all those who go to these Catholic primaries and do want wish to travel 2 miles to 1) Sacred Heart or 2) London Oratory both Roman Catholic State funded in Hammersmith and Fulham borough or 3) Christ's School, a Mixed Church of England comprehensive school in Richmond, where Catholic students get priority.

Thank you Goodnessme for making so many valid points about why the 'Richmond Inclusive schools campaign' is not so 'inclusive'. Politely can i remind people what 'inclusion' actaully is. It is about including in soceity and respecting the rights of everyone, enabling everyone to practise their faith and beliefs. At present this campaign is for the 'benefit' of one group only those in central twickenham it is not going to impact across the borough and is highly unlikely to provide places for those outside of twickenham (which already has 2 such good schools). However a Catholic school would benefit children over the whole borough in 2 ways 1)it would enable some of the 200 children of tax paying families who have to go out of borough to have a school place within the borough in their community 2) as a substantial amount of money (several milllion) will be put into this project by the Catholic church (which these parents also contribute to through their church donations) more money can be realeased into the rest of the borough to help further improve other secondary schools .

Bay Jay your wording implies that majority of Catholics support your campaign. Over 2 thousand people on the 'Catholic schools for richmond' would beg to differ . Those Catholics who simply want excellent schools are already in your community schools, those 200 or more families every year who are going out of the borough are doing so because they do not meet our needs and being in 'the top school' is not our priority where being in a Catholic school is. This has absolutely nothing to do with not wanting our children to go to the exsiting academies for the majority of us. I whole heartedly support using our taxes to support the improvement of other state local schools as we are part of a community. I feel strongly that people are forgetting that in this debate and it is becoming more about getting more for those that have rather than providing something for those that have not. If you consider please that 200 families a year going out of borough and you multiply this by 7 years of secondary school there would be well ovr a thousand displaced children from this borough. 1 in approx 7 children in this borough is a catholic and not even 1 in 8 secondary schools meets those childrens needs which has to be wrong as we are all paying our taxes and paying for the education of your children too. All Catholics are asking is a school for teaching their children peacefully within the community to live alongside their peers of different faiths. There are more than enough children to fill that school across the borough and it would proivide continuity of education for those moving on from our 6 Catholic primary schools (1 in 8 primary schools in Richmond after all is a Catholic school)

At the end of the day all of us aim to chose a school that reflects our values, culture, hopes and desires for our children. Some parents chose Orleans for its technology, or twick academy for its sports, some people refuse to consider schools that they think culturally do not relect their home life why is it then that Catholics are expected to be differnt and ar being told they have no right to a schools to meet their needs? All the majority of practising Catholics want is a school that reflect our beliefs, supports our values, is centred on God and helps our children to grow into good young men and women who will be great additions to their community and to the world. Like you we just want to give our children the best chance possible too and this has nothing to do with wanting the best top performing, school in the borough we just want a school.

Bay Jay I have noticed on another site that your children attend a Voluntary aided Cof E school . Am i to believe tha despite benefiting from this education yourself that your are advocating the system to be scrapped for other childrne in the borough?

I would also like to ask the question , how is it possible that Catholics should not feel that this campaign is anti Catholic when I believe Jermey Rodell was also involved heavily in the campaign to prevent the Pope from visiting our borough? Does Mr.Rodell have children of primary school age that the policies he is advocating will help? I am asking this politely as I struggle to understand what his motivation here is and would like to understand it better. I respect the Mr.Rodell for his right to practice his beliefs as a Humanist but I do not feel that the respect goes two ways in allowing Catholics and therby surely also at some point Anglicans, Muslims, Sikhs , Hindhus and all those of other faiths in the borough to practise and live their beliefs alongside his own .

Yes we need to improve the boroughs schools for everyone! In the last council meeting when Jeremy put forward his objections we were informed that the borough intends to spend far more on improving the existing schools than they intend to put into the new Catholic school as the church were also going to contribute significant funds to the school. I live close to Twick acadmey and can already see the massive amount of improvements taking place there. In understand that at the present time many of the school places there are taken up by children out of borough which would indicate that LBRUT children are not chosing it rather than there is a shortage of school places for Richmond children. So yes we need to do all we can as a community to support the borough in their work, however this does not need to mean that we continue to exclude over 200 Catholic children a year (from tax paying families) by not providing places for them to study and grow within their own borough

Please do go onto the councils website and watch the live debate which was recorded and is available to watch to see the argumants from both sides